Dialectics: Contradictions.

[Universal Struggle]

So Comrades, i am not very good at understanding dialectical materialism, but isn't it a way of looking at the universe, in constant contradiction?

Like, that the bourgousie overthrew the fuedal order, but in doing so, planted the seeds for their own downfall, the working class.

But if everything is a contradiction, wont communism then give way for another system?

Also How can a Dialectical Materialist believe in god, if Dialectics says that there is no higher being than man, it would be great if someone could give me a reply without making me more confused than i already am :)

[vyborg]

Please not here! put this post away...we are full of this nonsense against dialectics in other part of the forum...

[Universal Struggle]

Seems the patiently explain bit in your sig is bollocks, eh

Thanks for the help "comrade"

How did i say i was against dialectics, i said i do not understand, because everyone i ask, refers me to some rubbish blog, with 20 pages of pompus writing, explaining nothing and giving me a headache

[Zanthorus]

So Comrades, i am not very good at understanding dialectical materialism, but isn't it a way of looking at the universe, in constant contradiction?

"Dialectical materialism" was a system of philosophy first expounded by Georgi Plekhanov on the basis of Engel's Anti-Duhring and Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy which because of the lack of access to Marx's earliest works among most of the Marxist movement at the time were taken uncritically as expounding all that needed to be known about the relationship between Hegel and Marx.

It is basically as you say, the idea that everything is constantly changing because it is in "contradiction". These "contradictions" produce changes which produce further "contradictions" and the process continues.

Engels proposed three "laws" which were supposed to be applicable to not only society but the entirety of nature which were then picked up by DM'ers afterwards as being the basis of Marxian analysis. Some more recent DM'ers have weakend their claims to saying that these only provide useful rules of thumb, in which case they are still admitting to the failure of the entire Dialectical Marxist milieu... but I digress. The laws are supposedly derived from the initial proposition that everything is in a constant state of change.

Engels three laws which he lifed from Hegel are:

a) The law of the change of quantity into quality and vice versa

This law asserts that changes in some quantitative aspect of something (such as increasing the temperature of water) while not initially creating any major change eventually reach some "nodal point" where change begins to occur very rapidly (so at 100 degrees water begins to boil even though before that it would still be water).

In his "Essays on the History of Materialism" Plekhanov explains this as a natural outcome of the half-hearted application of the maxim that "everything changes". Upon realising this materialism had, according to Plekhanov, begun to develop a dynamic view of reality. But this view was evolutionary and couldn't allow for large leaps in social or natural reality. Then along came the law of quality into quantity which asserted that at these "nodal points" a quantitative revolution occured.

b) The law of the interpenetration of opposites

This basically states that everything contains within it it's own opposite. And that when carried to an extreme something becomes it's own opposite.

The example that Hegel used to demonstrate this was the idea of an abstract right. If you adhere too rigidly to abstract ideas about "right" and "wrong" in the real world, according to Hegel, you will actually cause serious injustice.

c) The law of the negation of the negation

This one is pretty simple. So I'll just give the example.

Pre-capitalism there existed systems of petty-artisan production and individual property rights. These gave way (or were "negated") through primitive accumulation to capitalist production which is based on social production but individualised ownership. Then through the social revolution this second type of property is itself "negated" to give way for social ownership.


But if everything is a contradiction, wont communism then give way for another system?

I doubt anyone who actually upholds DM has ever even given that a second thought.

[Crux]

In before Rosa. Long before I hope.

[Crux]

I doubt anyone who actually upholds DM has ever even given that a second thought.
Because that holds about as much interest to me as post-industrial communism would have held to Spartakus or Müntzer. I can speculate, but it would be meaningless, given I can not tell what the precise premises are. One vital difference, that Marx and Engels are sure to point out between previous revolutions and the proletarian one is that, for the first time, the most oppressed class will be the one to seize power. This was not the case previously, the slaves did not become the ruling class, nor the peasants but the merchants and the capitalists. When the truly oppressed class rise to power, the basis for class oppression disappears, so again the working class taking power is not just the end of capitalism it is the end of the working class.

[Zanthorus]

Because that holds about as much interest to me as post-industrial communism would have held to Spartakus or Müntzer. I can speculate, but it would be meaningless, given I can not tell what the precise premises are. One vital difference, that Marx and Engels are sure to point out between previous revolutions and the proletarian one is that, for the first time, the most oppressed class will be the one to seize power. This was not the case previously, the slaves did not become the ruling class, nor the peasants but the merchants and the capitalists. When the truly oppressed class rise to power, the basis for class oppression disappears, so again the working class taking power is not just the end of capitalism it is the end of the working class.

Well sure, that's what any ordinary communist would've answered. However dialectical materialists assert that everything is made of opposites and everything changes into it's opposite. So the question is how they can uphold communism as the final stage of history if it must inevitablly change by virtue of dialectical laws. Unless communism is not a "unity of opposites" which transforms into it's opposite and negates itself... in which case dialectical materialism would be wrong.

[graymouser]

Well sure, that's what any ordinary communist would've answered. However dialectical materialists assert that everything is made of opposites and everything changes into it's opposite. So the question is how they can uphold communism as the final stage of history if it must inevitablly change by virtue of dialectical laws. Unless communism is not a "unity of opposites" which transforms into it's opposite and negates itself... in which case dialectical materialism would be wrong.
Marx saw the difference in terms of class societies being destroyed but creating new antagonistic social classes, right? In terms of communist society he saw it as eliminating classes altogether and refounding society on this higher basis. Where it would go from there is basically utopianism to try and predict in advance, but essentially the common sharing of wealth would prevent scarcity from forcing new class relations on society.

[S.Artesian]

So Comrades, i am not very good at understanding dialectical materialism, but isn't it a way of looking at the universe, in constant contradiction?

Like, that the bourgousie overthrew the fuedal order, but in doing so, planted the seeds for their own downfall, the working class.

But if everything is a contradiction, wont communism then give way for another system?

Also How can a Dialectical Materialist believe in god, if Dialectics says that there is no higher being than man, it would be great if someone could give me a reply without making me more confused than i already am :)


Because the contradiction is not an external godlike governing force, but internal to the social organization of labor. So capitalism, in its need to accumulate capital must enhance the productivity of labor. And the very enhancement of the productivity of labor then impairs further accumulation of capital.

See volume 3 of Capital, The German Ideology, and A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

Communismabolishes the contradiction in the social labor process, the opposition between labor and the conditions of labor.
As for the god thing... I have no idea. I don't know any Marxists who believe in god.

[Zanthorus]

Marx saw the difference in terms of class societies being destroyed but creating new antagonistic social classes, right? In terms of communist society he saw it as eliminating classes altogether and refounding society on this higher basis. Where it would go from there is basically utopianism to try and predict in advance, but essentially the common sharing of wealth would prevent scarcity from forcing new class relations on society.

That's historical materialism not dialectical materialism. The question remains that if everything changes into it's opposite how dialectical materialists can assert that communism will be the final stage of history.

[S.Artesian]

That's historical materialism not dialectical materialism. The question remains that if everything changes into it's opposite how dialectical materialists can assert that communism will be the final stage of history.


That is not the question asked in the original post, by the comrade seeking an explanation. Graymouser's response is that explanation. And communism is the end of that history where all heretofore existing history is the history of class struggle. The class struggle is overcome. End of "pre-history."

[Crux]

Well sure, that's what any ordinary communist would've answered. However dialectical materialists assert that everything is made of opposites and everything changes into it's opposite. So the question is how they can uphold communism as the final stage of history if it must inevitablly change by virtue of dialectical laws. Unless communism is not a "unity of opposites" which transforms into it's opposite and negates itself... in which case dialectical materialism would be wrong.
Yes, but unlike in it's hegelian incarnation, dialectical materialism is not simply a philosophical idea floating about in thin air, it derives itself from the material contradictions of capitalism and previous societies. If I cannot give a complete description of post-capitalist, post-class society how am I suppose to give a precise description to what contradictions would occur? To say there would be none at all seems utopian to me. One suggested, by Engels I believe, would be the contradiction between nature and human society but I find it superfluous to speculate about.

[Zanthorus]

That is not the question asked in the original post, by the comrade seeking an explanation. Graymouser's response is that explanation.

The original post asked how communism could be sustained if everything contains "contradictions". graymouser's post explained that there would be no class antagonisms in communism, which is a fine explanation for those of us holding to the "materialist conception of history". However according to dialectical materialists there should be some kind of "contradictions" inherent in communism which lead to it's replacement.


Yes, but unlike in it's hegelian incarnation, dialectical materialism is not simply a philosophical idea floating about in thin air, it derives itself from the material contradictions of capitalism and previous societies.

And, of course, the analysis of the material "contradictions" of boiling water...

[vyborg]

That's historical materialism not dialectical materialism. The question remains that if everything changes into it's opposite how dialectical materialists can assert that communism will be the final stage of history.

I would say, quoting Marx, that communism will bring about the end of prehistory and the start of the proper history of humankind. The "final stage" is a senseless idea.

Contradictions will be there of course, but they will not be based on the productive relationship.

[Crux]

And, of course, the analysis of the material "contradictions" of boiling water...
Someone else might take you up on that, but I am not interested in a discussion on the dialectics in nature, I am not a physicist or into the natural sciences and I am fairly certain that's not what we are discussing. The questions raised clearly pertained to human society. You are simply evading what we were discussing.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, as has been said by the others, communism is arrived at through the resolution of all class contradictions. For the first time in human history, the working class is the ruling class, and therefore class struggle (the contradictions that created all other kinds of society) ceases to exist. Of course there would still be contradictions of other kinds, and perhaps these contradictions would lead to a totally crazy new type of existance, but there is no point speculatin that now.. our aim right now is to resolve class contradictions to create a free and equal society.

And Zanthorus' explanation is alright except that it's stuck in the 19th century dialectics. There have been improvements in our understanding of things since then, most notably with Mao. It is Mao who pointed out that contradiction is central to the dialectical transformation of everything, and that's the most common understanding of dialectics now.

[Zanthorus]

I would say, quoting Marx, that communism will bring about the end of prehistory and the start of the proper history of humankind. The "final stage" is a senseless idea.

I would say, roughly interpreting vast amounts of Marx's work, that communism will abolish the fetishised constraints which currently hold back humanities collective appropriation of the conditions of production and allow room for free human self-creation. The idea that another "stage" of history will pop up amounts to saying that another form of society in which social relations are fetishised will appear after communism which seems absurd...


Someone else might take you up on that, but I am not interested in a discussion on the dialectics in nature, I am not a physicist or into the natural sciences and I am fairly certain that's not what we are discussing. The questions raised clearly pertained to human society. You are simply evading what we were discussing.

Hey, take it up with all the prior advocates of dialectical materialism, not me.

[graymouser]

That's historical materialism not dialectical materialism. The question remains that if everything changes into it's opposite how dialectical materialists can assert that communism will be the final stage of history.
Look at it this way:

There will be contradictions in the new society that will cause it to change and grow. However, we are immersed in the old society so completely that our attempts to figure out what those contradictions would even be are hopelessly colored by our current problems. Marx predicted, quite realistically, that the transition would take two phases, the first of which would be stamped with all the birthmarks of its predecessor. We are the people who can get to that phase, and we can have a rough idea of what it could be like, but those ideas will be corrupted by our experience in capitalist societies.

As Majakovskij correctly points out, we don't expect Müntzer to have predicted the crises of modern capitalism. Likewise it's meaningless to say "well, in communism they'll have the contradiction of.... " because we are as far removed from it as he was from us.

[graymouser]

To further clarify: what we can say is that they will not have the contradiction that exists between classes because the resolution of the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in favor of the latter does not create a new historically necessary class. The contradictions in communist society will exist but they will be things we can barely even dream of.

[The Vegan Marxist]

No Rosa!!???? :confused:

:thumbup1:

[Zanthorus]

graymouser: Consider yourself the winner of this argument. I'll spare my energy for those who try to force the dialectic onto nature.


No Rosa!!???? :confused:

:thumbup1:

According to one of her last posts in the "Is Dialectical Materialism a Religion" thread she's gone away for a few days.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I see the dialectical mystics here are still helping themselves to the word 'contradiction' without explaining why the things they say are 'contradictions' are in fact contradictions, when they do not even remotely look like them.

In fact, the term derives from Hegel's egregious confusion of the so-called 'law of identity', 'stated negatively', with the 'law of non-contradiction', when there is no connection between these 'laws' (or if there is, neither Hegel nor his groupies here have been able to show what that is).

So, other than a slavish adherence to the Engelsian tradition, this is the only 'reason' for using this term in dialectics.

Which is all the more puzzling in view of the additional fact that the very best Marx could do with this word, in Das Kapital, was to 'coquette' with it.

So, the mystics here do not even have Marx's authority to point to in support of their odd use of this word.

[S.Artesian]

warning! Do not feed the troll. Feeding the troll will unleash forces that disrupt, disorganize, and destroy all intelligent inquiry and concrete analysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Smartesian:


warning! Do not feed the troll. Feeding the troll will unleash forces that disrupt, disorganize, and destroy all intelligent inquiry and concrete analysis.

But, I rather like feeding you...:(